In a recent bout of strike zone curiosity, I started looking into umpire accuracy metrics to try to visualize the baseball world at our doorstep: a world in which balls and strikes are called by robot umpires. While referring to an electronic strike zone as “robot umpires” no doubt adds an unnecessary measure of Asimovian flourish, the reality of baseball’s future is bearing down on us. Electronic strike zones are coming to baseball.
Then again, COVID-19 threw a wrench into all pockets of predicting baseball’s future, and there’s no longer any certainty in, well, just about anything. So there will be no more crystal ball voyeurism from me today, no more speculation, only a cold, hard look at the past.
Of course, the issue of umpire accuracy is hardly reserved for the future. Until electronic strike zones are implemented, the human models making the calls behind the plate remain incapable of ridding themselves entirely of human error – try as they might. Sometimes a ball misses the plate, and they call it a strike. Sometimes it crosses the dish, and the arm stays at the umpire’s side. The question for today is this: which pitcher got the most extra strikes in 2019?
With my previous look into Statcast pitch data, I looked for clusters of pitchers that would illuminate certain things about how umpires called balls and strikes. Today is about passing along some of the trivia. Statcast data, after all, holds a ton of information, including whether or not each ball or strike was correctly called. Using machine learning, we can pretty cleanly find those pitchers who benefited the most from gifted strikes, as well as those who were hurt the most by stolen strikes.
And that brings us to Adam Warren of the San Diego Padres (frequently and presently a member of the New York Yankees). Of the pitchers who threw as many as 200 pitches in the majors in 2019, it wasn’t close: Warren benefited more than any other pitcher in 2019 from umpires gifting extra strikes.
To be perfectly clear, a gifted strike here is a pitch that lands outside the strike zone that the umpire calls a strike. This alone does not make Warren the luckiest pitcher in baseball. Nor does it make him the umpires’ favorite (though it probably gets him a look). In a vacuum, that Warren led the league in percentage of called strikes that were gifted means only this: no pitcher had a higher percentage of their called strikes come from pitches that missed the zone.
This was important for Warren because, even with the added help, only 31.4% of his pitches landed in the zone (league average was 39.4%). And while batters swung and missed at a relatively average rate when Warren was throwing strikes, batter O-Contract% – the percentage of times a batter makes contact when swinging at a ball outside the zone – was just 61.9%, much lower than the 67.3% average. So the more Warren got batters to chase, the more effective he became (surprise, surprise). Still, he only registered 7.85 K/9 versus 3.77 BB/9.
For context, MLB pitchers – on average – had ~16% of their called strikes come on pitches outside the zone. Warren, by contrast, received a gifted strike on almost 42% of his strike calls. This was an extreme outlier. The second-place finisher for highest percentage of gifted strikes was Michel Baez at ~30% – interestingly, also of the Padres (and the conspiracy is on!). Not for nothing, but Warren also fits the profile of the type of pitcher more prone to getting extra calls. He averaged just 86.4 mph this season (fastball clocking at 91.4 mph), he’s right-handed, and both his fastball and curve register in the bottom quartile for spin rate.
If he were a starter, he’d fit the mold exactly. Of course, sample size is likely a culprit here in Warren’s numbers being so far outside the norm. Warren wasn’t exactly a spotlight pitcher in 2019. He threw 555 pitches for the Padres across 25 games, 28 2/3 innings. He ended the year 4-1 with a 5.34 ERA/6.91 FIP making his season worth -0.2 bWAR/-0.8 fWAR. This is not to say he will be a total disaster if he suits up for the Yankees sometime this season, nor is it to say he’ll receive the same measure of umpire error if he does. Though Warren has been received favorably by umpires in the past, his overall average percentage of gifted strikes over the past 5 seasons is just under 28%. That still puts him two standard deviations above the mean, but nowhere near the outlier of his 2019.
Gee, you would almost think that these guys had a catcher in common who led MLB in pitch framing by a wide margin.
i think the “conspiracy” comment was a joke
We all knew “conspiracy” was a joke. But him not even mentioning that they shared a catcher who led MLB in pitch framing by far seems like he may have neglected cause and effect in his article.
It’s almost like, he thinks everyone knows that them being on the same team would mean they have the same catcher…weird…
Yeah, and it’s almost like with all the plentiful information that he shared in this post about how much affect a catcher has on balls and strikes that everyone will know that it’s not just the pitcher. Wait a minute…
Well….. considering at the start of July Francisco Mejia started playing more at catcher and Michael Baez wasn’t called up till July 23rd….it’s weird you’d think Baez and Warren would have had the same catcher or pitched to the same catcher equally…..
Cause from July 1st to end of the season Francisco Mejia started 32 games at catcher……which means Mejia and Hedges had roughly the same amount of starts since July 1st.
So there’s no guarantee Baez was throwing to Hedges like Warren would have been (only pitched till June). Baez appeared in 23 games since his call up on July 23rd.
So Baez only pitched to the best pitch framer in baseball 50% of the time? As opposed to every pitcher on every other team in baseball who pitched to the best framer in baseball 0% of the time? And what exactly is your point?
Maybe that is why Baez had only 30% gifted strikes as opposed to the 42% that Warren had?
To what degree do other Padres staff rate above or below the mean? If their ranking was not significant what actually is the effect if the catcher on the staff as a whole?
“it’s weird you’d think Baez and Warren would have had the same catcher ” try reading closer man. Was responding to comments.
My point was it’s necessary for the article to include how often they pitched to hedges and how often they pitched to Mejia cause Baez clearly did not pitch to Hedges 100% of the time….nor did Warren probably.
All the more reason to let technology take over ball and strike calling.
I disagree. We need the human error so that I can be entertained by ejections and tirades. Possibly brawls.
You thinking that Buck Showalter and people of his ilk won’t punch a machine is laughable lol
I’m pretty easy on these writers but the same thought occured to me as well. Hedges is probably baseball’s best framer. That has to be worth a good chunk of those extra strikes.
Sample size seems like enough to make up whatever else needs further explanation. It kind of sounds like case closed to me as well.
I would love to see Showalter punch the machine….or see him argue with it…..lol
I would rather just see strikes called strikes and balls called balls…. if the machine is accurate then I am for it. I would be fine with never seeing another argument or brawl !!! Just play ball and leave the attitude out.
We’re all missing the point. The Padres have someone in their player development system teaching these guys how to fool umps.
Why do people assume there won’t be a trick to fool robo-umps too?
As long as there is huge money involved with sports, whether it be salaries or gambling, there will be a bigger incentive to cheat and win than play clean and lose.
Framing is not cheating buddy
how dare you suggest that a technological solution will be anything but perfect in its execution of getting the right call every time?
It will be designed by humans that will have to manage to anticipate every possible wrinkle that it encounters, do you think it’s really likely that someone will take advantage in some way that would be unfair to the spirit of competition? Ridiculous, as if that could every happen.
It’s not cheating. I compare it to flopping in other sports. A movement designed to fool the governing bodies in an attempt at advantage. It’s pathetic.
Remember when we were kids and some buttface would bend the calls in his team’s favor because we didn’t have refs or umps? That kid always ruined the game. It wasn’t even cool if he was on our team either because a cheap win doesn’t feel as good.
Ejemp- so what you are saying is cheating is ok with you because it’s better to win, so it’s fine with you that the Astros cheated and Dodgers should have cheated better, so they could have won instead. The World Series trophy should go to the better cheater, and Lance Armstrong should still have his 7 yellow jerseys.
Catchers are taught how to frame pitches. Some players are just better at it than others. Cheating? You must be an Astros or Red Sox fan. Is this supposed to support some kind of “everybody cheats” excuse? You are stretching so far to find cheating that now you are just making it up. Stop trying to deflect blame.
It’s really very easy: using video cameras to steal signs and relaying them to players in real time? Cheating. Pitch framing. Not cheating. Even stealing signs from second base isn’t cheating. I don’t personally like it, but it’s not cheating.
neo:
It’s silly to suggest that, because the electronic zone can’t be designed for every possible wrinkle, that it’s more susceptible to cheating. First, it doesn’t have to be designed for every possible wrinkle; all it needs to do is determine whether any part of the ball was in the strike zone, or not. It is infinitely better at that then the human eye. Second, the human factor involves not only the honest errors. It seems to me getting an umpire to cheat would be easier than trying to hack the system, which would surely be designed with security as a priority. Given the recent sign-stealing scandal, MLB will go the extra mile to prevent that sort of thing.
Manfred – I was just about to same the same thing. If the pitch is a ball it should be called as such. It should not be a strike because the catch can trick the umpire, no more than a basketball player getting away with holding the opposing players uniform not being a foul in basketball.
I am for robo umpires if they can accurate, and I love replay, because even with the delay they usually get the call correct.
an overrated free agent, just as should have been expected
You gotta mention Austin Hedges here, best framer in the game.
He certainly deserves credit but the notice is put to Warren because he’s such an extreme outlier statistically. If many of the pitchers caught by Hedges had such extreme numbers, it would be easier to give more focus on him.
There is always two components to a pitching battery and both always deserve some attention. Either component being different can result in different outcomes, perhaps significantly so. Perhaps there is something about Warren that helped him push to accurately place pitches that were juuuuuuuust a little but outside, so that his excellent framer could do the rest. Each having an essential role, but only one pitcher took advantage of it so well among his contemporaries.
Great pitcher looks to expand the zone.
You need a catcher to help. A lot of it is on the catcher
Zach Greinke is a pitcher since he has been with the Astros I have noticed who looks to work the ump and expand the strike zone.
Interested where he is on the list. Maybe pitching more to Maldonado this year can help.
Great pitcher can get by with never throwing a strike.
Greinke is one who would say if he didn’t have to throw a strike he wouldn’t.
Not even a mention? Don’t disrespect Austin Hedges like that.
Well, TC peaked people’s curiosity and stirred some conversation.
I’d call that a successful post.
You mean the guy that played in my 6 games then broke?
Interesting. Now you’ve whetted my appetite. More curious (IMO) would be to know which pitchers had the most pitches IN the strike zone that were called balls? Or which umpires made the most “wrong” ball/strike calls? (Pctg wise)
I remember watching Greg Maddux get strikes called that were 6-8 inches off the plate. Slow motion replay showed it. I also remember announcers saying “Greg Maddux gets those pitches.” And I remember thinking how nice for Greg Maddux! Taking nothing away from Maddux, one of the greatest ever. A guy that would have probably been a really good middle infielder with both bat and glove had he gone that rout. But I am looking forward to a real, defined strike zone with electronic ball and strike calling. I will miss the dirty looks hitters give umps sometimes though. And hitters getting tossed for arguing balls and strikes. But let’s try the new technology.
I vividly remember the Marlins first game ever. Charlie Hough the knuckleballer started for them. His first strikeout came on a pitch between 1 and 2 feet outside. Still got called a strike.
Reason for an electron umpire!
Neutron umpires are better. Less biased.
Clever
Totally ignoring the benefits of a proton umpire.
I remember that too, it was Brett Butler of the Dodgers in the top of top 1st. Pitch was a knuckleball that started on the outside corner and dove away about 2 feet off the plate literally.
Javy Lopez was a great catcher in his own right but Maddux wanted Eddie Perez for a lot of his time with the Braves
Goes back to the point about how the catcher is responsible as well
Tom Glavine got as many ridiculous calls as Maddux. Didn’t Lopez usually catch him?
Maddux got lot of calls because he was a wizard of control and location and his follow-through squared him right up to the plate. Anyone who doesn’t believe that gets results isn’t watching the same game as I’ve been watching.
The original poster doesn’t understand what got all those strike calls for Maddux. He was my favorite player and I watched Maddux work as often as I could. A baseball analyst once said of him that he could throw a golf ball into a tea cup. If you consistently pound the strike zone the way Maddux did so consistently you are simply more likely to get the close calls.
If your statement that Maddux got calls off the plate by 6-8 inches was common then it’s a large exaggeration. I have seen MANY replays of Maddux in addition to live action. I never oncr saw a pitch that got THAT much favor. If you insist this is true then you should post a link to a replay like that.
@Brewers39 No, Maddux was caught by Eddie Perez the majority of the time. They had a bond and was commonly referred to as Maddux’s catcher.
Hedges is the man. Sanchez not so much.
Exactly, because even though it’s nice to have a catcher that can hit, their WAR will not be as high as it should’ve been if they’re terrible defenders, as Sanchez is and is also the worst defensive catcher I’ve ever seen. So yeah, Jorge Posada is a gold glove fielder compared to him, because he was actually alright, which Sanchez never will be, although Posada wasn’t an elite defender.
Gary Sanchez is not even a bad defensive player, such a tired and old narrative already.
It’s crazy to think we’re so close to the automated strike zone. It’ll change the outlook on things in the league drastically. And think, no one to split the catcher and batter apart when a HBP happens! lol
There will still be a home plate umpire. The call made by the electronic strike zone will be relayed to the home plate umpire who will essentially announce the ball/strike decision via his usual hand motions. They will also need an umpire there to cover plays at the plate.
The ump will still be there. He just worldview wouldn’t be calling balls & strikes.
ugh, freaking spell check
Umps are bias for and against players and they do not like….I am sure they give a strike here or call a ball there. They are human I get that…..machines are not and if the manufacturers get the programming right it should be more fair for everyone.
So if we’re going to accept the concept of “gifted strikes,” then why aren’t we also talking about about “gifted balls” or better yet “stolen strikes”?
Goes back to the old Ted Williams story when the ump told the catcher that Ted Williams would let him know when it was a strike.
Don’t hear that story as much anymore but was very commonly told by baseball announcers.
I also remember years ago hearing Vin Scully tell a story about an umpire who when a batter asked him about whether a pitch he swung at and missed was a ball or a strike, told him “if you swung at it, it was a strike.” In the rush to turn baseball into a video game what we’re at risk of losing is something fundamental about the contest between the pitcher and batter. Deception is a big part of it. Good pitchers know how to fool both batters and umpires, that’s one of the reasons they are good. Eliminate that and a big part of the game is being changed, in ways that nobody has even thought about very much.
Deception? Really? He wants to have a funky windup or delivery that’s fine, but something as simple as determining if a pitch stays within the defined strike zone should be uniform. No more human error or personal umpiring preferences necessary. I think this was long overdue, and much was due to the umps arrogance and/or incompetence.
Agree. Keep umpires in the game. It’s not the same and baseball is a conservative game that is proud of its history and traditions.
Abso-friggin-lutely. F* robot umps and, really, lets get back to the way the zone was actually called c. 15 years ago, which, regardless of the letter of the rule book, was much better for the game.
Polish, pitching has always been about deception. I don’t know how anyone could watch the game and not understand one of the most fundamental thing about it. Location, arm angle, sequence, delivery, follow-through, speed, break. They are all about deceiving the hitter, and because umpires are human beings too, they are deceived by the same things. Take that away and the game hasn’t been made better or fairer, it’s simply been made different. My point is nobody talks about how much different it would be.
There’s far more to pitching than just deception. I’ve heard pitchers say hitting is about timing and the most important thing is upsetting the hitter’s timing. The technology won’t affect that. Besides, the electronic strike zone won’t take away deception, like the funky delivery, the quick pitch, hiding the ball during the wind up, etc.
The TV viewers seeing the electronic strike zone complicates things. It was different when all it was was instant replay. Now millions of people watching see the true strike zone, and know for sure when an ump makes a bad call. Everybody watching a game shouldn’t have an advantage over the ump as to whether a pitch is strike or not.
Of course there’s more to it. Sorry for not belaboring the obvious. I am pointing our the role of deception in pitching, which rarely gets mentioned despite its importance. I understand where the pressure for it coming from, I am again saying robot umpiring will change the game in unpredictable ways that aren’t being discussed or considered.
“…pitching has always been about deception…one of the most fundamental thing about it.”
That sounds fairly absolute to me. Maybe be clearer next time instead of shifting the blame to someone else when they take your statement as written, and not say something like, “you know what I meant”.
Plus, I hear deception talked about a lot as it pertains to pitching. Not sure why you believe no one is talking about it. Besides, if the hitter is deceived, he either takes a pitch that winds up in the strike zone, or he swings at a pitch out of the zone. Either way, whether it’s a real, or a robo-ump, is irrelevant. You’re talking about the potential loss of the situation where the hitter is not deceived, but the umpire is.
Just to expand on why slow fastballs and low spin rate breaking balls are prone to being called strikes even when they miss a little: they’re much easier to catch…and frame…than a pitch with crazy movement on it.
Of course, the best breaking ball, if you’re living outside the zone, is one with a high spin rate and sharp but PREDICTABLE movement. Like the ones Masahiro Tanaka likes to throw. I don’t have the stats, but from watching the games, he gets a lot of gift strikes too…even with the Yankee catching staff’s should we just say “varied” pitch framing abilities over last few years.
Buster posey! *clap clap clap clap clap clap*
You mentioned you used machine learning in your approach. What algorithm/model did you use? I’m not familiar with how the Statcast data is laid out, but I would think you could come to these conclusions with simple exploratory data analysis and you would not need machine learning.
Do you have your analysis on Git or somewhere else?
“Led the lead” … sheesh.
So this is really why you post on MLBTR? I’m starting to think you just want my attention.
Hey guess what? You can still get an Athletic subscription. That way, you actually pay into it and this have a legitemate complaint.
Bring on the robo-umps and end the scourge of pitch framing.
The absolute LEAST impressive or entertaining “skill” in any sport.
Wow, you fooled a 62 year old union member. Bravo. Slowest golf clap ever.
Why find catchers who can hit home runs or throw out baserunners when you can find guys who are really, really good at moving their glove a half an inch?
Can’t wait to pay $55 plus parking to watch a guy move his glove half an inch (from 450 feet away) to fool Angel Hernandez. Exhilarating.
Maybe next they’ll find out that catchers who fake sneeze when the pitch crosses the plate get extra strike calls and we can see who leads the league in “sneezing”. Won’t that be fun, too?
Pitch framers are the floppers of MLB
loved the isaac asimov reference. I don’t personally like the automated idea. takes a lot of intangibles out of the game. imperfection is what makes the game perfect
And replays/automation is just about getting the calls correct, no bias or incompetence necessary.
Until it affects your team and then that old fashioned days of yore thinking goes right out the window.
So, does a blown call against your team make you so mad and disgusted that you don’t tune in the next day or follow them anymore? Very doubtful. The human element is 100% part of the game. Replay already ruins that. This robot ump stuff is going too far.
Tell that to Cardinal fans of the 80s, slim.
Heater has never had a blown call go against his team in a playoff game or World Series. I have 2003, 2004, 1975…….
Yes, heater it makes you so mad you do not want to watch anymore……and whether a call is reversed for my team or goes against I am for replay.
I like the robo ump telling the real umpire what to call. Ask the umpires to be entertainers with the calls, Steeeeerike one.
Drebin style!
Robot ump is the worst idea. Manfred is a joke.
The idea and concept of an electronic strike zone has been bandied about for decades. But sure, blah blah blah everything sucks this sucks you suck it’s a joke zzzzzz
Why is it good idea that every single person watching TV knows better than the guy, actually making the cal,l whether a pitch is a strike or not?
MLBPA sent a proposal to come back and stated they need to be safe. Well if you need to be safe then you need to be willing to isolate yourselves during the season to ensure that. Even the WH is not safe so not sure what kind of guarantee MLB can give you. In addition you will have to take a serious pay cut otherwise owners will just close shop for the year.
Wait- I thought I read a similar article saying it was John Lester that got the most gifted strikes
I believe Lester got the most calls but warren got the highest percentage
What’s the line between framing and an umpire making a bad call because it sure seems grey and fuzzy to me. Pitch framing sure seems like it takes advantage of that. Not saying that’s cheating. Just saying it is.
Umpire Don Denkinger……….He is best remembered for an incorrect safe call he made at first base in Game 6 of the 1985 World Series,[2] which came to be known as The Call.[3]
….and cost the St. Louis Cardinals the World Series……..I am not a Royal fan, but I hate seeing teams get screwed.
Yes, I am for replay
Denkinger lived in the town I went to college and was a Hall of Fame quality umpire, but one blown call and all people remember about him 35 years later is The Call…..